You have Accessed a document that is part of the cover web page on a religious opposition to the NYS Seatbelt law, Nassau County, New York.   To access main page, click the icon at the left.




Rev. Allan Cronshaw Jr.

480 Maitland St

East Meadow, NY 11554


January 30th, 2006



Roe v Wade Proved Bogus Law!

New York State Rejects Right To Privacy!


Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
U.S. Senate
476 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington , DC 20510
Attention: Constituent Services

Fax: 212-688-7444

Re: Summons # LM 761596-3 and LM 761597-4


Dear Sen. Clinton:


After discussing the negation of Constitutional Rights with a representative of the media, it was suggested that I first contact you directly.   And while the enclosed letters to the clerk of the court and District Attorney Kathleen Rice is basically on First Amendment religious grounds -- rights that appear to have been suspended by the State of New York -- it was pointed out to me that the denial of rights is just as representative of an invasion of privacy on the part of the government -- which is an issue that you have long championed.   In fact, it was pointed out that your response, or lack thereof, could very well be the story within the story.

Is There A Right To Privacy? It has long been suggested by many legal scholars that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution -- and that this right to privacy was manufactured by the pro-abortion movement.   Who is correct?   The true test of who is correct can only be measured by the universal acknowledgement of this alleged Constitutional Right.   There is of course nothing in the Constitution that affirms a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy and end the life of her unborn child.   So the ruling in Roe v Wade was based upon a Constitutional Right of Privacy from government intrusion.   But, if it can be demonstrated that the supposed right to privacy only exists in the matter of a woman’s right to have an abortion -- and this right to privacy is not uniformly protected with respect to all unwarranted intrusion of government into the lives of individuals -- then the legal scholars who claim that this right to privacy was manufactured by the liberal pro-abortion movement can be substantiated as valid.     The Constitution requires uniformity of application and equality of rights and protections in all of its concepts and prohibitions.

Do You Represent All New Yorkers?  It was pointed out that if a local judge, magistrate, court or government agency attempted to negate a woman’s right to privacy by inhibiting her abortion rights, people such as yourself, Kathleen Rice, and others would be leading the charge in order to immediately deal with such a violation of what would be viewed as a denial of her right to privacy upon which Roe v Wade is based.   But in order for this right to be authentic and Constitutional, it must be equally applied to all infringements of government intrusion into the people’s right to privacy.    Thus far, it would appear that the supposed right to privacy is bogus, because it totally lacks uniform application of law.     

I have begun tracking the development of this case on-line at .   A copy of all the letters, motions, and papers in this matter will be put on-line at the above link.   As has been pointed out, the only test of privacy, is parallel to that of religion -- i.e., the only compelling and overriding interest of government into these Constitutionally protected Rights, is whether the claim of a right negatively impacts the rights of others.    It is the findings of the Court that “The essence  of law that has been set and  written on the subject is that only those  interests of the highest order...  can overbalance legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion” (Thomas vs Review Board 450 us 707, 718 [1981] accord,  Wisconsin vs. Yoder, 406 us 205,  215 [1972]; Sherbert vs Verner, 374 US 393, 406 [1963]).   Under Constitutional mandate, the state ONLY has a compelling interest in any such matter, if the religious person’s claim to a right was to negatively affect the rights of someone else.   Therefore, the test of the Constitutional Right to religion and privacy would be virtually the same.   If the right to privacy is only valid from the perspective of a woman’s right to have an abortion -- and the government is not required to observe this right to privacy in any other matter -- then the legal scholars who claim that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to privacy, and that this supposed right has been manufactured -- would be correct.   Unless there can be demonstrated uniform application, then the claim to a right to privacy must be seen as bogus.

In the same way that both my own, as well as the Constitutional Rights of the people are not infringed by a woman choosing to have an abortion – and therefore, government has no compelling interest in the matter under the right to privacy – the same is true on my own claim that the wearing of a seatbelt would deny the practice of my spiritually based (Gnostic vs faith-based) religious beliefs.   In my Motion to the court, as well as the associated letters, I demonstrate both the spiritual foundation for my claim of First Amendment protection, and even demonstrate the reasoning behind this claim from a modern quantum physics perspective.   But as it has been pointed out, unless the government can demonstrate that my refusal to wear a seatbelt on religious grounds can be shown to negatively impact the Civil and Constitutional Rights of others, then the same arguments that government does not have a valid compelling interest in this matter can be raised that has been mandated under the privacy provision that is the foundation of Roe v Wade and a woman’s right to have an abortion.   While the Constitution does not explicitly declare a woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy, the Court has ruled that the people have a right to privacy from government intrusion – and one of the ways that government has attempted to intrude into people’s lives and violate their privacy, is the restriction on abortion.   But in order to pass Constitutional muster, it must be demonstrated that this right to privacy is uniformly and equally applied.

In the ultra-liberal state of New York, one would think that the government would be very conscious of the right to privacy.   After all, it has been pointed out that if a woman’s right to privacy was in any manner inhibited in the matter of abortion, both yourself and Kathleen Rice would be outraged.  It has been speculated that a news conference would be immediately called, and an investigation ordered.   And while this matter of privacy is parallel with respect to the compelling interest of government, it has been greatly speculated whether either yourself, or District Attorney Rice, will even be moved to take an interest in the matter.    Thus, the story within the story which will determine whether the Constitution does in fact preserve Privacy as an UnAlienable God-Given Right, will be measured by how it handles cases such as this were it fails to have any compelling interest whatsoever -- especially when a religious conviction is not only stated, but proven both biblically and scientifically.





Rev. Allan Cronshaw Jr.


Enc:      Letter To Court Clerk

            Letter To Kathleen Rice


Cc:       Court Clerk

            Kathleen Rice